SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

   Technology StocksApple Inc.


Previous 10 Next 10 
To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (206995)12/6/2019 11:57:05 AM
From: Moonray
   of 207892
 
If these are "fresh antitrust violations," why does the article bear a Reuters 2017 copyright date? Fake old news?
I have no idea about the Reuter's date, you'll have to ask them.
The story's by-line says:
Written by Robert Smith × December 6, 2019
and the story says:
The accusations, made in a filing late Tuesday in US District Court for
the Southern District of California, are counterclaims to a seeking to
force the contractors to pay Qualcomm licence fees that Apple
directed them to stop paying.

So I have no reason to believe it is fake news.
A lot of times Qualcomm bulls believe any story is fake if it has
something detramental to say about QCOM. Perhaps the four
contractors thought they had fresh info seeing the headline:
Qualcomm to appeal against another antitrust whopper:
This time it's $873m courtesy of South Korea

o~~~ O

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (3)


To: Moonray who wrote (206996)12/6/2019 12:15:07 PM
From: waitwatchwander
   of 207892
 
Qualcomm bulls believe any story is fake if it has something detramental ....
No that one is all BS. I'll now leave you to your search for a fool. Maybe you have found him in Robert Smith?

Cheers

ps The quality of SI certainly has deteriorated over the last few years. I take that as much of the good stuff moving on while what remains being dominated by the likes of "Robert Smiths".

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: Moonray who wrote (206996)12/6/2019 6:17:38 PM
From: Sr K
3 Recommendations   of 207892
 
ATHs by

AAPL
CRUS
NKE

A total of 104

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Sr K who wrote (206998)12/6/2019 9:02:17 PM
From: Stock Puppy
1 Recommendation   of 207892
 
ATHs by

AAPL
CRUS
NKE

A total of 104
Congratulations to those that bought Apple at the Black Friday sale price.

Yay.


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: Henry J Costanzo12/6/2019 9:16:27 PM
7 Recommendations   of 207892
 
TA Update:

Began the week with a strongish pullback more or less in synch with a broad market pullback, but promptly reversed...outpacing a similar broad market reversal...hitting new 271 intraday record high, for the 3rd such high in 3 consecutive weeks.

In the foregoing process, a bullish ascending pennant appears to have been completed, activating a measured move towards 280ish. In addition, today's opening gap appears to have been a runaway continuation gap, measurable to 277ish..

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Henry J Costanzo who wrote (207000)12/7/2019 2:34:10 AM
From: clean86
   of 207892
 

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: Moonray who wrote (206996)12/7/2019 11:02:17 AM
From: yofal
1 Recommendation   of 207892
 
Best to vet these sites before reposting.

ValiantNews looks to be a one man Wordpress blog (every story is written by Robert Smith?) likely automating a rehash of content scraped from a GoogleNews RSS feed. They got a bad date in there somehow (not surprising) and "everything old is news again".

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: yofal who wrote (207002)12/7/2019 12:14:56 PM
From: Moonray
   of 207892
 
Best to vet these sites before reposting.
I did: justice.gov
I found cases about that 2019 time brought by Apple,
but could not specifically confirm nor deny what was
in that story. Therefore, I posted what I did to this thread
as to what is being said. To me, your post and others
just voice your opinion with no evidence from other sources
that this is "fake news". If you have such evidence, bring it
forward so we will all know. I post a lot of stories from one-man
blogs (mostly pro-Apple), so that is not critical with me.
Also, there are A LOT of blogs that NEVER update their
copyrght date, this certainly could be one.

o~~~ O

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: Moonray who wrote (206992)12/7/2019 2:09:33 PM
From: Heywood40
   of 207892
 
Yup, that one's two years old:

reuters.com

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Heywood40 who wrote (207004)12/7/2019 2:23:31 PM
From: Moonray
   of 207892
 
OK, thanx!
I can accept your contention of it as "fake news"
because the story you presented and the one I
found BOTH say the cases were presented on
a Tuesday. From my standpoint I can see that
the 4 companies augmented their old case with
new evidence of anti-trust brought about by the
recent findings of such against Qualcomm by
recent cases in other countries.

None-the-less, shouldn't I have posted the story
anyway, so that stockholders would realize that
"fake news" is being said out there?

o~~~ O

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)
Previous 10 Next 10